Tagaziel

You know what, I give up. I don't see a point in continuing this exchange any longer. especially when it's obvious we aren't even on the same page as to the definitions we use.

Olympus Has Fallen. It's a decent action flick, best approach as a black comedy. The amount of **** YEAH, AMERICA is awesome.

A very good post, though it also highlights why Yugoslavia is not a particularly good example. Ukraine has a vastly different geographic composition and, unlike Yugoslavia, after 20 years its economy is in the pigsty and the political elites are rotten to the core. Ukraine may have had a chance at pursuing a third route, but at the present it lacks the foundations to do so. It wasn't even doomed to suffer this state, as many other SSRs and satellite states in the region managed to pull through. Calling Yugoslavia socialist is accurate as far as declarations go, but its ideology was derived from communism, its primary party until tito's death was the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and if we want to start defining the precise ideologies of the different communism states, we open a can of worms filled with communist newspeak. As for bankrolling, the counter-demonstrations and thugs were explicitly paid for by Yanukovych's government.

International treaties don't infringe on national sovereignty because... You say so? Let's take Spain as an example: The list of treaties it is a party to is long and each limits its sovereignty to a degree. You've referred to Westphalian sovereignty, but ignore the fact that the very definition of that concept requires absence of external interference in national affairs. Being party to an international treaty is allowing external interference, as each treaty restricts the ability to make sovereign decisions. The European Union is the result of a series of such treaties, treaties that were entered by member countries voluntarily and without coercion. Do they limit certain aspects of sovereignty? They do. Do they abolish it, as you constantly state? No, they don't. Each member state is free to exercise their sovereign rule, but is bound by laws and regulations it voluntarily accepted. Furthermore, the EU doesn't micromanage countries. You're only partially correct when you point out that legislation of the EU affects other member countries. It does, but the implementation of EU legislation in any given member country is left to the national parliaments. Furthermore, the Court of Justice is focused on Union law, not national law. It interprets treaties and passes rulings on the Union level, it doesn't micromanage national courts. Similarly, the European Court on Human Rights is a court specifically intended for appeals in cases where human rights might be violated, as was the case with the Tysiąc case. Last, given that you're quick to flaunt your time of living on the Iberian peninsula as some sort of credentials for understanding the EU, it's puzzling you think having an education and mentioning it is abhorrent. It isn't a dodge. You've been constantly redirecting the discussion, making irrelevant points. Again, the subject matter is not Ukraine joining the EU, but signing an association agreement, yet you're reframing it as if Ukraine wanted to do the former. Furthermore, your point is somewhat inconsistent. On one hand, you're complaining that the EU destroys national sovereignty, yet at the same time you're complaining that the EU did not impose solutions across the Union to fix the inequality problem. I say, it's convenient. You're treating the EU as a federation whenever it suits your point, like when you complain that the EU is not fixing the inequality problem. Given that poverty and inequality levels and cicumstances vary by country, the EU can only do so much. National policies are the crucial element of targeting it, as one overarching policy that applies across Europe would be either too generic to be of help or force countries to adopt policies not suited for their individual circumstances. What works in Sweden doesn't have to work in Germany, Italy, or Spain. It's interesting that disagreeing with you automatically makes me an ignoramus, because I happen to not share your opinions about the Union. Yeah, I must be intellectually dishonest. Totally. Except I'm not the one claiming that living in the EU since '86 gives you grounds for speaking about it, except when someone else claims something similar, then it's "What does it matter how long have you been living in the EU." Did I say it's not strategic? No. I said it wasn't as strategic as Germany or Poland, which were to be the primary battlefields of World War III. In their relative strategic importance, Germany and Poland trumped Yugoslavia because they offered what was effectively a highway straight into the USSR, owing to the lack of natural barriers. And yes, I use a loose, broad definition of what constitutes the eastern bloc. It's just as warranted as your alternating treatment of the EU as a federation (whenever it doesn't do something you want it to) or a Union that encroaches upon national sovereignty (whenever you want to bash it). I never said Poland was neutral and I never stated Yugoslavia was not a strategic country. What I consistently said was that Poland was pursuing a policy of non-alignment with any of the two superpowers it was stuck between (the wording might be off, but that was the point) and that it is a better example than Yugoslavia because the circumstances in which it existed are much closer to the ones in which Ukraine exists. But, of course, instead of actually reading the point, you're focusing on nitpicking and twisting words. Yes, the EU and Russia aren't the Third Reich and the SU, but that wasn't the point. You're constantly moving the goal posts around and twisting the argument just to appear right.

High five, baby! We have Kamil Stoch and his golds to cheer us up.

It's just oby. I wholeheartedly recommend updating your ignore list, I've put two more people on it in this thread and the quality of posts improved immeasurably.

Yeah, the split between the east (Russian speaking Ukrainians supporting closer ties to Russia) and the west (Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians supporting closer ties to the EU) may turn into a bigger rift than before. Makes you wonder if a split into West/East Ukraine wouldn't be beneficial to the nation in the long term.

[quote name="213374U" post="1421410" No. You keep connecting things that are not linked by a causality relationship. Economic cooperation with the EU does not mean a development of the Ukrainian economy. You need to present evidence that this would be the case. That's all I've been arguing and asking for in this thread—evidence that it will lead to "welfare" for Ukraine at any point. Statistics seem to indicate that joining the EU has, at best, zero impact on that and countries just continue on their present course (whatever that may be), while giving up an important portion of their monetary, legislative and judicial powers in the process. Except you're going to dismiss any evidence presented, as contrary to your point. There is no evidence at this point, what exists are different expert opinions on what can happen. If you disagree that closer cooperation with the largest economy in the world on advantageous terms is not going to be beneficial for Ukraine, that's your right. But don't treat it as fact. Furthermore, what "important portion" of monetary, legislative, and judicial powers does a country give up in the EU? In what way am I giving up on national sovereignty? Subscribing to the idea of a federal Europe isn't giving up on sovereignty, it's subscribing to the idea of a federal Europe. Furthermore, the Non-Aligned Movement isn't a group of perfectly sovereign countries. Every country is limited by international treaties it is a party of and other circumstances. That does not mean that the state is not sovereign. While I've been experiencing the EU every since my country's accession in 2004, so I have plenty of first-hand experience. I also have done my reading (and have a law degree, but that's a separate matter), so I know that the EU is about, in concept and in practice. Spare me the condescending bull****, please. It sucks to be in Spain and Portugal, but don't pretend the EU forced your government to adopt unsafe policies, bloat public spending, and ignore the bubble. The Union does not micromanage countries, that's left to the individual national governments. Which superpowers was Yugoslavia stuck between? I specifically pointed out that while it split with Stalin and the Warsaw Pact, it was still a communist country, a part of the bloc. It wasn't, however, a vital strategic area like Germany, Czechoslovakia, or Poland, where Third World War would be fought. I cited an example of history that happened to disprove your assertion. Instead of responding, you're pulling a No True Scotsman counter.

http://twitchy.com/2014/02/22/open-house-courtesy-of-the-revolution-people-of-kiev-swarm-yanukovychs-private-zoo-pics/ Waaat. Also, Yanukovych got impeached by the Rada. 328-0. http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0222/505973-ukriane-protest/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_during_Euromaidan The earliest activist deaths date to 21st January, with police deaths starting nearly a month later, during the storm on the Maidan. So no, the first deaths weren't policemen shot by activists, but activists killed by government forces. As for retards like Muzyko, they're a part of the demonstrations. The Euromaidan isn't a homogenous, organized terrorist organization, like some claim. It's a mixture of people, from ideologists, to simply pissed-off Ukrainians. Sorry, not going to indulge you any longer. I'm not going to argue with someone who claims gunning down labourers protesting for fair compensation or military subjugation of countries are acceptable, because everything is relative. Mostly because at this point it'd consist of 99% expletives.

The latest reports suggest he's bailed and is nowhere to be found. He's either on the run, seeking asylum, or dead. Or trying to pull a Darius. At this point, his death would hurt, rather than help the Ukrainian cause. Awesome, thanks for the link.

And? The alternative is not settled, because you might've missed the memo that the Ukrainians are pushing for snap elections (the constitution has been restored) How is Thatcher even remotely relevant to this thread? "Hey, this woman did bad things in a country thousands of kilometers away, so what happens in Ukraine is bad." Furthermore, you're consistently ignoring the fact that under Yanukovych, the situation on Ukraine has deteriorated, its human rights record worsened, and Berkut acted as de facto political police. Yanukovych did not exercise his power legitimately either, as he violated basic principles the Ukrainian Constitution. Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself. Yanukovych is good because he's the democratically elected leader of the people, while Thatcher is bad because she's the democratically elected leader of the people. It's either-or, bro. You're applying double standards across the board. While you oppose the topic and you're bunching up undecided and opposed parties into one, just to create a faux majority. Crutch mutch? So in your world, there are no legitimate grievances to be had, just entirely relative groups of people pushing to impose their vision and interests of others? That's a pretty sad way to view the world and dismiss legitimate popular movements. I can only assume you consider the 1956 Poznań riots or the invasion of Czechoslovakia perfectly acceptable, because who was the victim depends "almost entirely on whether you agree with them or not and whether they're your political allies or not"? Furthermore, you're exercising special pleading. Euromaidan, Occupy, and the war protests all had a single common element: Spontaneous, popular protests. You're also ignoring the fact that the radicalization of the former was a direct result of attempted crackdowns by the government, which took place from the very beginning of the protests in Kiev. I would. I might not like the result, but I don't contest people exercising their rights. The current death toll (according to Wikipedia, which cites all of the sources) is 16 dead cops and over a hundred dead protesters, with nearly 2,000 injured (as opposed to 200 on the opposite side of the barricade). Trying to arbitrarily limit the timeframe to just the period where the numbers support your argument is bad form. Trying to skew them and pin the blame on protesters exercising their legitimate rights is even worse. There, fixed that for you. Now, do you want a Minigun with your freedom hamburger? Which, in your logic, gives total free reign to anyone who happens the election. Representative democracy is representative, power derived from the people's mandate, and accountability. Yanukovych's actions deprived him of legitimacy, specifically when he attempted to break up the protests, putting his own country to the torch. Uh, no, it really isn't. The death toll is currently 5/6:1 against the protesters, with a similar distribution in terms of injured. Kind of a given when you have police armed with high powered rifles and automatics fire at mostly unarmed protesters. So they should just lay down and die, watch their country spiral down into an authoritarian "democracy"?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/ukraine-president-backs-down-signs-peace-pact-protesters-n35171 A deal has been signed. Assuming Yanukovych doesn't back out and try to make life tough for the Maidan or that the right wingers manage to stir up crap, looks like the political goals of the Euromaidan are at least partially met. Yanukovych is done either way, out of friends and out of support, with government forces starting to openly mutiny against him.

Which tells you more about the Ukrainian government and foreign countries than it does about the protesters. The primary cause of the unacceptable bodycount are government forces firing at mostly unarmed protesters with high powered weapons and automatics. We'll see. Just because something can go wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, else there'd be no point to having surgeons or ER specialists.

Instead of majority, I should've typed "largest group," alphanumerics is correct. I wouldn't call it a bad lesson. It's a good lesson in humility for politicians in a country whose political class is devoured by corruption. Such a shock therapy might actually be worth it in the long term, as it will serve as a warning to future representatives not to ignore the country. Plus, it shows Ukrainians that the right to protest works, a right that's a fundamental part of democracy. My friend explained this as the unfortunate result of widespread political apathy and disenchantment after Yuschchenko pissed away his political capital.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26284505 Allegedly a settlement has been reached. We'll see what will happen. He did restore their country as a superpower, fixed the economy, and restored national pride lost in the first part of the second Thirty Years' War. They didn't really have a reason to rise up against Hitler and as total information control was implemented, they were kept in the dark about most dark aspects of the war. Hindsight is 20/20. Am I saying it's squeaky clean? Your twisted vision of democracy as a tyranny of the majority is troubling. As is the implicit claim that winning in elections gives a free card to rule the country in any way they want to. Representative democracy is representative. Not an "elect your own dictator" type of affair. Furthermore, polls show that the majority of Ukrainians supported association with the EU, which means that Yanukovych deliberately ignored the nation and made a decision that was beneficial to him, not the Ukraine. Seriously, you are starting to sound like oby, except copy/pasting Yanukovych's government claims. And your logic can easily be used to dismiss every protest as "butthurt losers." Occupy? Butthurt losers. Opponents of the Iraq Invasion? Butthurt losers. Civil rights movements in the 1960s? Butthurt losers. Yes, ignore the fact that before the bloodshed began (at the instigation of government forces, no less), it was a peaceful protest, where the Ukrainians exercised their democratic rights. It wasn't until Yanukovych tried to deprive them of that when problems began. Why wouldn't it be allowed? The Occupy movement you're so fond of using as an example is, well, an example of how they would be allowed. There are also numerous other examples of mass protests that did not turn violent, such as the Iraq war protests, massive in scale, yet peaceful. The common thread is that government forces did not brutally disperse them, unlike Ukrainian forces. You're clinging to the fiction you created in your own head that Euromaidan was a coup d'etat attempt from the very beginning, when it was a peaceful protest since the beginning. It ecame radicalized when government attempts to silence the protests became too brutal (Berkut was breaking up the protests from the very beginning in November). I would, same as I do for other protests that I feel are valid. However, they did not. Then why weren't there dead protesters during Accampata Roma? You know, the 200,000 mass protest in Rome where a group of extremists started chucking Molotov ****tails in Rome, demolishing the city etc.? Or the ongoing Spanish protests? And no, it's not confirmed by everyone as started by the protesters. Only in your head. It isn't a monolithic bureaucratic dictatorship. Y'see, the MEPs are elected directly by us. If you don't exercise that right, it's your choice, but don't bitch and moan that it's a dictatorship because you can't be bothered to participate in democracy. An implicit part of your logic is that winning democratic elections is a "be a dictator for free" card. And yet when I point out that the right to protest and accountability before the people are basic elements of democracy, you ignore that and go off on an irrelevant tangent that some opposition party leaders may be similarly bad. So what is it? Furthermore, one of the goals of the movement are snap elections consistent with the democratic principles outlined in the Constitution. And you have it.

Plus, the point isn't urban warfare.

https://twitter.com/OlesyaZhukovska I've posted her photo (taken after she was shot) earlier in the thread. There's a number of conflicting reports about her, she's either dead or heavily injured. Unconfirmed reports put the number of protesters dead at around hundred, with many more wounded.

Do you live in a western country? If so, maybe you should travel to countries were actual repression is present, maybe it can put some perspective in you.

double post

http://zyalt.livejournal.com/1003663.html Here's a translated journal entry from a man on the ground. The Kyiv Post article was also a good summary. What's your point? Seriously, you're basically ignoring what I say and fashion straw men to argue against. So far I gather your points are: * Yanukovych happened to win elections, so he can do whatever he wants, including killing his own people, * Euromaidan is criminal, because it's unheard of for popular protests to be composed of different groups of people or for them to turn violent after a baseless crackdown and attempts to disperse them, * shooting protesters is OK, because... **** if I know what your rationale for that is, * the EU is bad, mmkay, * oh, and Yanukovych is a lovable innocent, constantly slandered by those naughty Euromaidan people. For ****'s sake, it seems as if you just want to be contrarian, dressing it up in the guise of "wise" posts. The West supports Euromaidan? Oh, then I must support Russia and Yanukovych, else my hip credentials are threatened!

Armor and automatics on the other side. Jesus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26268620 **** is hitting the fan. 15 protesters confirmed dead, possibly more. A friend told me that apparently police snipers are targeting medics. And it wasn't supposed to. Again, the point of contention is the association agreement with the EU. This association would open the door for closer economic cooperation with the EU and development of Ukrainian economy, leading to long term welfare. The average Ukrainian in the streets is fighting and dying for a free country and the ability to associate with the EU. That was the original reason the Euromaidan formed and it still is. There's a reason EU and Ukrainian flags are on the maidan. Also, forfeiting of sovereignty? No country is truly sovereign in the modern world, maybe except for North Korea and other psychotic, insular regimes. Which is a global phenomenon not limited to the European Union. I studied those statistics before and they do highlight a problem. However, the OECD study you linked to (a great piece of research, thanks) also points out that there isn't a consensus as to what accelerated the development of inequality. It's likely a combination of factors, including faster growth of income in the top brackets, not marked by an increase of a similar scope in the lower ones. Ukraine stands to gain: * More free entry into EU countries. * Access to EU markets. * Easier opportunities for work in EU countries. * Exposure to European law order, leading to reforms (which may be actually required per the association agreement). Also, it's apparent you start with the preconceived notion that the EU is bad and then refuse to acknowledge that it may do some good. I'm well aware of the EU's shortcomings, but it's still the best bet for Ukraine. Yugoslavia wasn't a strategic country between two superpowers that sat on the fence. It was firmly a part of the communist bloc, though due to the Tito/Stalin split, it developed on its own. A better example would be Poland, which was a strategic country between two superpowers prior to 1939 and tried to pursue a third way, according to the Two Enemies doctrine. It didn't work out in the end and after the Nazis and Soviets tag-teamed us, we got gobbled up by the USSR.

Euromaidan began as a spontaneous, peaceful protest in November against the suspending of talks with the EU concerning the association agreement. You're big on pointing out that Yanukovych was elected somewhat democratically (passably fair and free isn't fully fair and free), but the right to protest is an inherent element of a democracy and Yanukovych repeatedly attempted to deprive Ukrainians of it (early Euromaidan protests were broken up by Berkut, which only pissed Ukrainians off further and amplified the scale). He acted in violation of the constitution of the state, which guarantees freedom of political expression, including the aforementioned right to protest, and establishes accountability to the common citizen. The protests aren't instigated by losers. They were started by disgruntled citizens and developed in size afterwards, with opposition leaders becoming informal figureheads of the movement. Tell me, if the elected officials are acting in blatant disregard of the law and the interests of the nation, what would you do? Wait until the next election? Or protest, as is your right? So? In the previous segment and in this one you're asserting the futility of the protests, because it was bad in the past, it is bad now, and it's likely to be bad in the future. The difference being that U.S. policemen did not fire into the crowd, did not deploy hired thugs to provoke protesters (one of many links you'll find when you google for titushki), did not shut down lights before a massed attack on the protesters using armored cars, and weren't acting like enforcers of the current regime. Protesters at Occupy Wall Street weren't shot dead. Summary from the Kyiv Post on the Feb. 18 violence. There's a big difference between Occupy Wall Street and Euromaidan. Are you seriously comparing Bush to Yanukovych? The EU isn't a blatantly undemocratic technocracy. It has its problems with democratic representation, but that's why you have eg. the Treaty of Lisbon implement changes to make it more fair and representative. Seriously, your entire argument boils down to "something's not perfect immediately, SO WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING OKAY." No ****, Ukraine's problems are caused by arbitrary decisions made by the Soviet empire, really? And here I thought that it was just random insanity, thank you for enlightening me. Apart from stating the obvious, the fact that Ukraine was an SSR doesn't mean it had to fail. Latvia and Estonia were annexed as SSRs and yet they recovered. Poland was a ruined country that became a Soviet satellite (though some communists pushed for full-out incorporation of it as an SSR) and yet it recovered. Yes, the world isn't fair. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it. I mean, seriously. From where I stand, you're basically looking like a cynic advocating total apathy and passivity because we can't make something perfect instantly.

I guess you missed the part where after three months of peaceful protests, the government attacked the protesters in an attempt to break them, with the police killing protesters and violence escalated by the deployment of paramilitary and military forces. But yeah, it's the protester's fault. They prolly kill themselves just to put blame on poor Victor. Then what option does Ukraine have? You're claiming it can stand on its own. How? It has an ailing economy, high levels of corruption, and is currently torn apart by internal struggles. You're citing examples from totally different times and totally different geopolitical situations. They aren't joining the EU. The revolution is over an association agreement, which can be the first step, but doesn't have to be. That said, I did take that into account and I did find a full version of the study online. It has a lot of interesting conclusions, including an explanation that a large part of the rise in inequality was caused by countries that joined the Union. Their internal inequality contributed significantly to the coefficient. It's also interesting to note that you seem to be putting the blame for income inequality on the EU, rather than its individual member countries. Why? You were the one comparing 2014 Ukraine to Cold War Yugoslavia. My comparison is as valid as yours.